THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 0028 OF 2012 MBABALI JUDE………………………..………………PETITIONER VERSUS EDWARD KIWANUKA SEKANDI…………………..RESPONDENT Coram: Hon. Mr. Justice Remmy Kasule, JA/JCC Hon. Mr. Justice Eldad Mwangusya, JA/JCC Hon. Mr. Justice Rubby Aweri-Opio, JA/JCC Hon. Lady Justice Solomy Balungi Bossa, JA/JCC Hon. Mr. Justice Kenneth Kakuru, JA/JCC JUDGMENT OF HON. JUSTICE REMMY KASULE, JA/CC I have had the benefit of going through the lead Judgment prepared by my brother Hon. Justice Kenneth Kakuru, JA. I too agree with him that the petition does not raise any matter for constitutional interpretation, and, as such, the same ought to be dismissed. The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is derived from Article 137 of the Constitution. It provides: (1) Any question as to the interpretation of this constitution shall be determined by the Court of Appeal sitting as the constitutional court. (2) When sitting as a constitutional court, the Court of Appeal shall consist of five members of that court. (3) A person who alleges that- 1 (a) An Act of Parliament or any other law or anything in or done under the authority of any law; or (b) Any act or omission by any person or authority is inconsistent with or in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may petition the constitutional court for a declaration to that effect, and for redress where appropriate. (4) Where upon determination of the petition under clause (3) of this article the constitutional court considers that there is need for redress in addition to the declaration sought, the constitutional court may- (a) grant an order of redress; or (b) refer the matter to the High court to investigate and determine the appropriate redress. (5) Where any question as to the interpretation of this Constitution arises in any proceedings in a court of law other than a field court martial, the court- (a) may, if it is of the opinion that the question involves a substantial question of law; and (b) shall, if any party to the proceedings requests it to do so, refer the question to the Constitutional Court for decision in accordance with clause (1) of this article. (6) Where any question is referred to the Constitutional Court under clause ((5) of this article, the constitutional court shall give its decision on the question, and the court in which the 2 question arises shall dispose of the case in accordance with that decision. (7) Upon a petition being made or a question being referred under this article, the Court of Appeal shall proceed to hear and determine the petition as soon as possible and may, for that purpose, suspend any other matter pending before it. Wambuzi CJ, with the concurrence of the rest of the court, expounded on the above Article when he stated in ISMAIL SRRUGO V KAMPALA CITY COUNCIL and THE Attorney General, Constitutional Appeal No.2 of 1998 (SC) that:- “the petition (read reference) must show on the face of it, that interpretation of a provision of the constitution is required. It is not enough to allege merely that a constitutional provision has been violated. The applicant must go further to show prima facie, the violation alleged and its effect before a question could be referred to the constitutional court.” See also: Constitutional Court Reference No.31 of 2010 Uganda V Francis Atugonza. It follows therefore that the jurisdiction conferred upon the Constitutional court by Article 137 is to ascertain whether or not the subject of the constitutional litigation, be it an Act of Parliament, or other law or act or omission done under the authority of any law, or by any person or authority, is or is not in violation of the constitution. This is in contrast with the other jurisdictions that are not of a constitutional nature, whereby the courts of law, vested with such jurisdictions, determine whether the claims before them are in contravention of some other laws, 3 customs, practices and other value norms of society, other than the Constitution. Thus the Constitutional Court adjudicates matters requiring interpretation of the Constitution, and not necessarily, enforcement of the Constitution, except where upon determination of the issue of interpretation of the Constitution, the said court considers, on its own, that there is need to grant additional redress. In such a case, the Constitutional Court may grant other redress in addition to having interpreted the constitution or it may refer the matter to the High Court to investigate and determine the appropriate redress: See: Article 137(4) (a) and (b) of the Constitution. A constitutional question that has to be interpreted by the Constitutional Court arises when there is an issue, legal or otherwise, requiring an interpretation of the Constitution for the resolution of the cause out of which that issue arises from. This issue may be raised either through lodgment of a constitutional petition in the Constitutional Court by a Petitioner; or through a reference to the Constitutional Court by the court that is determining the cause from which such an issue requiring constitutional interpretation arises or where a party to the proceedings of that cause requests that the court refers the issue to the Constitutional Court for interpretation. Interpretation of the constitution is the ascertaining of the meaning of specific constitutional provisions and how they should be applied in a particular context. Meanings are assigned to words of the constitution so as to enable legal decisions to be made by the court vested with competent jurisdiction to 4 interpret the constitution determine whether or not the matter before it is in compliance and or consistent with the constitution or not. Interpretation of the constitution also embraces the term “construction” that is inferring the meaning of the provision(s) of the constitution from a broader set of evidence, such as considering the whole structure of the constitution as well as its legislative history. See: Principles of Constitutional construction: http://www.constitution.org/cons/prin cons.htm, John Roland of the constitution society. See also: Pepper (Inspector of Texas) V Hart [1993]AC 593. Justice D.M. DharmadhiKari of the Constitutional Court of India in his Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Some Reflections (2004) 4 SCC (Jour) 1 , has contextualised that phrase ”interpreted the constitution” thus: “[A] Constitution is thus, a permanent document to endure for ages. The words and expressions in the Constitution have to be construed by not only understanding the mind of the framers but on the basis of each generation’s experience in relation to current issues and topics. A Constitution as the Indian Constitution, cannot comprehend, at the time of its framing, all issues and problems that might arise in its working in the times ahead. The Constitution, therefore, contains only basic democratic principles. It contains habits and aspirations of people of that generation, but it is drafted in a way to realize those obJectives for future generations”. In South Africa the Constitution expressly provides that its interpretation must promote the values underlying an open and democratic society and consider international public law and foreign law. 5 In Uganda Article 2 makes the Constitution the Supreme law of Uganda with binding for one on every one and all authorities in Uganda in case of any other law or custom that is in consistent with any provision of the constitution, the constitution shall prevail and that other law or custom shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. It follows therefore that the jurisdiction to interpret the constitution is of critical importance the world over, Uganda inclusive, and as such, the same must be exercised correctly and appropriately, as the consequences of its exercise are of a fundamental nature in the governance of society. Therefore while a court vested with the jurisdiction to interpret the constitution must, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, allow and avail itself to be accessed by anyone with a genuine constitutional cause deserving interpretation of the Constitution, such a Court, given the critical nature of its jurisdiction, must see to it that the exercise of its such jurisdiction, is not abused and misapplied by litigants who may access the Court not genuinely seeking constitutional interpretation, but rather to pursue their personal causes that they can legimately pursue elsewhere in other Courts of Law. The issue that calls for interpretation of the Constitution by the Constitutional Court must involve and show that there is an apparent conflict with the constitution by an Act of Parliament or some other law, or an act or omission done or failed to be done by some person or authority. Further, the dispute where the apparent conflict exists must be such that its resolution must be only when and after the Constitutional Court has interpreted the Constitution. The constitutionality of statute or same law, or the act or omission of a person or authority must be brought 6 forth for determination. See: Hassan Ali Joho and Another V Suleiman Shahbal and 2 others (2013) eKLR (Court of Appeal, Kenya). Interpretation of the Constitution also arises if a given aspect of a case that is the subject of litigation in a court of law or quasi tribunal or body is not explicitly provided for in the law and its constitutionality has not been determined. See: the Constitutional Court of Canada case of Edwards V Canada [1930] AC 124: See: also Black’s Law Dictionary 6 th Edition, pp 8178-818. There is however, a difference between the Constitutional Court interpreting a provision of the Constitution as stated above and any other court of law applying a particular provision of the Constitution to a particular set of facts of a case that is being determined by that court.